Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability

Dhruv Dhody <> Wed, 10 August 2022 10:17 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 72A1AC15C516 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:55 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.104
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.104 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, RCVD_IN_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001, URIBL_DBL_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001, URIBL_ZEN_BLOCKED_OPENDNS=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Authentication-Results: (amavisd-new); dkim=pass (2048-bit key)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id dn93814gkOiv for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( [IPv6:2607:f8b0:4864:20::135]) (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_128_GCM_SHA256 (128/128 bits) key-exchange X25519 server-signature RSA-PSS (2048 bits) server-digest SHA256) (No client certificate requested) by (Postfix) with ESMTPS id D6E5FC14792E for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by with SMTP id b12so8016653ils.9 for <>; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:54 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:from:to:cc; bh=PATqgqcqJXljj15liAaHIJYs5yVmmanfJnqSYVySLfM=; b=ifibXW1cBrZRh7MV8ISfko7FbNSlEDyG4VPaDNTND7N+TJ8a1z7RKPygJEQG0TxO3l pj9LXu9pFDSuN6dp0JFbs+zfdWggxLEG8n2HIY1n7Fv53Bf18MaOkuQwCDd2jGDZbDyR NU+7U5r2ghoUFJNIsgIoUrHLfj1Zb1QZGE9DRkpnTK7awWRm23cTnbpQS0DC2nSLhsX4 ulcxo5Vei6vD0F1G7srak3ZL8EhuEBspez/hMJFKg1j9/M28XJqu0OkUQ3P5yboV6ByA hu5ecYlTaoOvCG6zr/AZWxmcFJ7VBshUzcd0t68NzUzWXEoDnzM23+Pi5Hkntlc9uzOT JELw==
X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed;; s=20210112; h=cc:to:subject:message-id:date:from:in-reply-to:references :mime-version:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc; bh=PATqgqcqJXljj15liAaHIJYs5yVmmanfJnqSYVySLfM=; b=MNfXcDUC15ukLlO7ZpFrXwTmWVreQ3ubZey3zZY6ajcP00d7nT/KdouiuJfdfwoVs1 a7ah2Oq2YtnsktulHnxdjOlUsmSNhsLYz64XxVLnj5BxgMt+t8DaEk+/nhi6c78uKAsv C0OZEKjbwamChYt0NfMXxwobxvxmkU+PLpBl6w6Rsh1Yd9uAMqcvTvWLjuitFH7q7/Py HPUy4/SCSWoaTYkRrZiHVOXM7tnnRxB/vW+eySeU7G8HxiBEXyc8+bZUodM6oH1fStkz nDSmSIz5LjdG+cj2FuVOz3t0vDD6/QyBbjLLzufpT3HqTtUVtbPXd+YOqi2IRkCbA24c ADnQ==
X-Gm-Message-State: ACgBeo3JKDg67I1LtGE9wFjVx7Sh0ucfRM3VHN6fsRxozzsYRvI6j190 IMbKcBANJZcek5tbvKWHhONMfoZaHNR22zE7y+FkPwqZRY8=
X-Google-Smtp-Source: AA6agR4FtXdOfS95n5Q2pjDtVwoye972fVwpvdUpozpKk/tzthJhecGjC3/OsNdaAZtLyJQmSoYxa40EPneXmcD5TAU=
X-Received: by 2002:a05:6e02:218c:b0:2e0:c966:a39d with SMTP id j12-20020a056e02218c00b002e0c966a39dmr8059735ila.216.1660126673559; Wed, 10 Aug 2022 03:17:53 -0700 (PDT)
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
From: Dhruv Dhody <>
Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 15:47:17 +0530
Message-ID: <>
To: Joel Halpern <>
Cc: SPRING WG List <>
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="000000000000a8e63505e5e05c5d"
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [spring] Proposed policy on reporting implementation and interoperability
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.39
Precedence: list
List-Id: "Source Packet Routing in NetworkinG \(SPRING\)" <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Wed, 10 Aug 2022 10:17:55 -0000

Hi Joel,

One suggestion, apart from "none to report" it might be a good idea to also
have a "not applicable" option for the WG's informational and architectural
documents to clearly distinguish between the the case of no implementation
exist v/s applicable.


On Wed, Aug 3, 2022 at 8:14 PM Joel Halpern <> wrote:

> At the suggestion of our AD, the WG Chairs have been discussing whether it
> would be helpful to be more explicit, in I-Ds and RFCs we produce, about
> the announced implementations and known interoperability tests that have
> occurred.  If the WG agrees, we would like to institute and post on the WG
> wiki the following policy.  The period for discussion and comment runs
> until 9-Sept-2022, to allow for folks who are on summer break:
> All I-Ds that reach WG last call shall have an implementation section
> based on, but somewhat more than, that described in RFC 7942 (BCP 205,*
> Improving Awareness of Running Code: The Implementation Status Section*).
> Authors are asked to collect information about implementations and include
> what they can find out when that information is available for public
> disclosure.  Documents will not be blocked from publication if the authors
> fill in the section as "none report" when they have made an effort to get
> information and not been able to.
> There are a couple of important additions to what is called for in RFC
> 7942.  We have confirmed with leadership that these changes are acceptable
> in terms of IETF process:
> 1) We will retain the implementation status section when the draft is
> published as an RFC.  In order to do so, the section will begin with "this
> is the implementation status as reported to the document editors as of
> <date>"
> 2) Each implementation description MUST include either a statement that
> all MUST clauses in the draft / RFC are implemented, or a statement as to
> which ones are not implemented.
> 3) each implementation description may include reports of what optional
> elements of the draft / RFC are implemented.
> Reports of interoperabiity testing are strongly encouraged.  Including the
> reports in the document is preferred.  This may include a reference to
> longer and more detailed testing reports available elsewhere.  If there are
> no reports of interoperability tests, then the section MUST state that no
> such reports were received.
> Yours,
> Bruno, Jim, and Joel
> _______________________________________________
> spring mailing list